Anonymous wrote:

Actually, I'm not applying any stereotypes at all. And I certainly never said that Asian Americans don't have that je ne sais quoi. The point I am making is that Admissions may be making assessments about candidates' personalities and "soft qualities," as some have referred to them, based on teacher recommendations. I say this because others have criticized admissions for making these assessments when they've never met the student (i.e., they must be giving them low personality scores simply based on the fact that they are Asian American). My point is that high grades and test scores and a long list of ECs don't tell admissions officers whether a student has that je ne sais quoi. But a letter of recommendation very well may. Unless the plaintiffs in this lawsuit have read every letter of rec for admitted/rejected students, I don't see how they have a case (and, btw, I'm a law professor, so I think I have a pretty good sense of what it takes to prevail in a case like this).

Would you apply this criteria to prove gender discrimination at companies against women, or racial discrimination in hiring in police departments against URM's. Think about the controversy about women entrepreneurs getting VC funding in the Silicon Valley. Which women's group will be ready to accept this argument that each case will have to be examined on an individual basis and there may be individual reasons why women are not funded as frequently as men?

This is a spurious argument. Any sane person would use statistical analysis to show bias. Since Asian Americans are not aliens from Mars, unless Harvard is able to prove that statistically Asians as a race are more prone to "get lower personality scores", a big gap in the personality scores between the races would show clear bias. Having said that, I would love to see Harvard make this argument, when none on their liberal administrators will stand and support Charles Murray making a similar argument about URM IQ's in the Bell Curve

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you are not willing to accept Blacks and Hispanics have lower IQ's on average, then you cannot argue that Asians have lower personality scores on average unless there is bias.

I never said this! All I said is that admissions officers rely on letters of recommendation (and personal essays) in scoring applicants' personalities. I have absolutely no idea what those letters say, and neither do you. It may be true that the letters of rec written for Asian American students are "lower" on personality scores than for white, black, and Latino students. But, if that's the case, then it's the authors of the letters of rec who may be biased, not Harvard, right? But if the letters of rec for Asian American students are just as strong on the personality score as for students of other races, but Harvard ignores those, and rates the Asian American students low, then the plaintiffs may have a case. But we have NO IDEA what the facts are here.

As to your point about statistics, sure, statistics can matter in a discrimination lawsuit. Often they are sufficient to make out a prima facie case. But if there's other evidence that rebuts the simple stats (i.e., letters of rec for Asian Americans are clearly inferior to those admitted students), then plaintiffs don't have a case. Moreover, if you think it's easy to prove a discrimination case like this, think again. And even a conservative judge who might like the facts of this case (protecting the "model minority") has to think about the precedent that will be set and how it will be used in a future case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the criticisms is that the Harvard admissions office is ranking/rating the candidate's personality without meeting him/her. But it seems likely to me that the admissions office is relying heavily on letters of recommendation. That seems perfectly legitimate to me.

the folks interviewing the students gave them positive "personality" assessments, but the admissions staff would give those same students negative scores without ever having met them. How would you rate a personality based on letters of recommendation?

Do you really think an alumni interviewer has a better sense of a candidate's personality than a teacher who taught him/her for a year (or perhaps more)? I'm not saying that teacher recommendations might not be biased, but certainly a teacher is likely to comment on a student's personality (is she friendly, mature, responsible, caring, etc.), so I don't think it's fair to say that Harvard admissions officers are basing their personality assessments on nothing. Unless the study takes teacher recommendations into account, then I am unpersuaded by the fact that admissions officers disagree with an alum's recommendation based on a one-off interview.

Would a teacher recommendation state that the student is "like a robot, not friendly, and immature"? One would have to have a pretty high level of responsibility and maturity to get the grades and e.c.s to at least have Admissions look at your application.

Getting good grades doesn't mean you are mature...it may just mean you have really demanding/controlling parents. It may also mean you are one-dimensional. I am an academic who writes letters of recommendation all the time. While none of my letters are bad per se (I wouldn't agree to write a letter if I couldn't say anything positive), some are simply good while others are glowing. The glowing ones go way beyond grades and talk about the student's interpersonal skills (important for my discipline), maturity, leadership qualities, ability to work in teams, etc. I have no doubt that admissions offices are looking at letters of rec to get a sense of the candidate's personality and, more important, potential to become something special. They want students with that je ne sais quoi that goes beyond grades and test scores.

And what makes you think that those Asian American students don't have that "je ne sais quoi " quality? I hear people say not to stereotype or look at URM students as statistics. Yet, these same folks don't seem to have any problems doing this very thing to Asian American students.

Read the other posts re: stuyvesant students/teachers.

The PP is obviously applying ignorant, racial stereotypes instead of reading informed posts. Typical low intelligence DCUM poster.

Actually, I'm not applying any stereotypes at all. And I certainly never said that Asian Americans don't have that je ne sais quoi. The point I am making is that Admissions may be making assessments about candidates' personalities and "soft qualities," as some have referred to them, based on teacher recommendations. I say this because others have criticized admissions for making these assessments when they've never met the student (i.e., they must be giving them low personality scores simply based on the fact that they are Asian American). My point is that high grades and test scores and a long list of ECs don't tell admissions officers whether a student has that je ne sais quoi. But a letter of recommendation very well may. Unless the plaintiffs in this lawsuit have read every letter of rec for admitted/rejected students, I don't see how they have a case (and, btw, I'm a law professor, so I think I have a pretty good sense of what it takes to prevail in a case like this).

The problem here is that this is a very subjective view. How do we know if this same student was a URM with the same letter of recommendation, this student would not get in?

I don't have a problem with universities looking at other non academic measures. The problem I have is that it appears that an Asian American student can have all of the qualities the university is looking for but because there are "too many" of them, they will take the other candidate over the Asian American one. Harvard and other universities have stated that their goal is diversity, which I agree, is laudable. However, when they start looking at ways to disqualify a student from one racial group over another with the same credentials simply because of the color of their skin, then it is discriminatory. This is what Harvard did years ago with Jews. If this same student was a URM with the exact same credentials and soft quality as the Asian American student and could get in, but the Asian American student can't, how is that not discriminatory?

Years ago, a black man had to outshoot, outscore, out-do everything a white man could do if he wanted a promotion or be picked up by a major league sports team. If it was wrong back then, why is it ok now?

But this is how affirmative action works. Whether affirmative action impacts whites or Asian Americans doesn't really matter. SCOTUS has said it's appropriate for schools to take race into account in admissions decisions. How is this case any different than the many other affirmative action challenges that have come along?

Anonymous wrote:

Actually, I'm not applying any stereotypes at all. And I certainly never said that Asian Americans don't have that je ne sais quoi. The point I am making is that Admissions may be making assessments about candidates' personalities and "soft qualities," as some have referred to them, based on teacher recommendations. I say this because others have criticized admissions for making these assessments when they've never met the student (i.e., they must be giving them low personality scores simply based on the fact that they are Asian American). My point is that high grades and test scores and a long list of ECs don't tell admissions officers whether a student has that je ne sais quoi. But a letter of recommendation very well may. Unless the plaintiffs in this lawsuit have read every letter of rec for admitted/rejected students, I don't see how they have a case (and, btw, I'm a law professor, so I think I have a pretty good sense of what it takes to prevail in a case like this).

Would you apply this criteria to prove gender discrimination at companies against women, or racial discrimination in hiring in police departments against URM's. Think about the controversy about women entrepreneurs getting VC funding in the Silicon Valley. Which women's group will be ready to accept this argument that each case will have to be examined on an individual basis and there may be individual reasons why women are not funded as frequently as men?

This is a spurious argument. Any sane person would use statistical analysis to show bias. Since Asian Americans are not aliens from Mars, unless Harvard is able to prove that statistically Asians as a race are more prone to "get lower personality scores", a big gap in the personality scores between the races would show clear bias. Having said that, I would love to see Harvard make this argument, when none on their liberal administrators will stand and support Charles Murray making a similar argument about URM IQ's in the Bell Curve

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you are not willing to accept Blacks and Hispanics have lower IQ's on average, then you cannot argue that Asians have lower personality scores on average unless there is bias.

+1 exactly.. like I posted earlier, some people say don't look at URM as statistics but as individuals; don't look at statistics when looking at scores; treat them as individuals. But this only applies to URM, and not Asian Americans, apparently.

If a large percentage of these Asian American students have low "soft skills" or EQ, and that's ok to say, then it should be ok to say that a large percentage of URM have low IQ and it should be ok to say that, too.

Actually, I'm not applying any stereotypes at all. And I certainly never said that Asian Americans don't have that je ne sais quoi. The point I am making is that Admissions may be making assessments about candidates' personalities and "soft qualities," as some have referred to them, based on teacher recommendations. I say this because others have criticized admissions for making these assessments when they've never met the student (i.e., they must be giving them low personality scores simply based on the fact that they are Asian American). My point is that high grades and test scores and a long list of ECs don't tell admissions officers whether a student has that je ne sais quoi. But a letter of recommendation very well may. Unless the plaintiffs in this lawsuit have read every letter of rec for admitted/rejected students, I don't see how they have a case (and, btw, I'm a law professor, so I think I have a pretty good sense of what it takes to prevail in a case like this).

Would you apply this criteria to prove gender discrimination at companies against women, or racial discrimination in hiring in police departments against URM's. Think about the controversy about women entrepreneurs getting VC funding in the Silicon Valley. Which women's group will be ready to accept this argument that each case will have to be examined on an individual basis and there may be individual reasons why women are not funded as frequently as men?

This is a spurious argument. Any sane person would use statistical analysis to show bias. Since Asian Americans are not aliens from Mars, unless Harvard is able to prove that statistically Asians as a race are more prone to "get lower personality scores", a big gap in the personality scores between the races would show clear bias. Having said that, I would love to see Harvard make this argument, when none on their liberal administrators will stand and support Charles Murray making a similar argument about URM IQ's in the Bell Curve

You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you are not willing to accept Blacks and Hispanics have lower IQ's on average, then you cannot argue that Asians have lower personality scores on average unless there is bias.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What Asians should do is collectively boycott Harvard for a year or two. There are other Ivy League schools. There are schools like Cal Tech, MIT, UChicago, Stanford, JHU, and SLACs. It's doubtful Harvard can maintain its status for long.

That could potentially bring Harvard down to NYU, NW, WashU, USC, BU, Duke, Rice, Vandy...

It would certainly bring down their average SAT scores.

It really makes laugh that some people denigrate Asian American students for studying too hard, taking prep classes, which all help increase SAT scores, but then these same people like to tout how high their school's test scores are. Newsflash: your test scores wouldn't be as high without those "robotic, test-prepping" Asian American students.

I’m not sure it would necessarily bring down their SAT scores. My underis that they could fill the class several times over with applicants with near perfect scores. Certainly, they are not all Asian. Plenty of other non-Asian kids ( more than enough to fill the class) have perfect scores.

Before you accuse me of being racist, i’m Not saying what is happening is fair. I’m just saying that plenty of non-Asian kids have good scores, too. There is just a large number of Asian kids with good scores so ther percentage is high. Admission to these schools is a crap shoot for everyone and holistic admissions make it even less predictible, but if there is indeed a thumb on the scale against Asian kids, that is not right.

Maybe, but statistically, it's the Asian American students who score the highest. They have a lot of applicants with near perfect scores because many are Asian American. If they left, statistically, those scores would go down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the criticisms is that the Harvard admissions office is ranking/rating the candidate's personality without meeting him/her. But it seems likely to me that the admissions office is relying heavily on letters of recommendation. That seems perfectly legitimate to me.

the folks interviewing the students gave them positive "personality" assessments, but the admissions staff would give those same students negative scores without ever having met them. How would you rate a personality based on letters of recommendation?

Do you really think an alumni interviewer has a better sense of a candidate's personality than a teacher who taught him/her for a year (or perhaps more)? I'm not saying that teacher recommendations might not be biased, but certainly a teacher is likely to comment on a student's personality (is she friendly, mature, responsible, caring, etc.), so I don't think it's fair to say that Harvard admissions officers are basing their personality assessments on nothing. Unless the study takes teacher recommendations into account, then I am unpersuaded by the fact that admissions officers disagree with an alum's recommendation based on a one-off interview.

Would a teacher recommendation state that the student is "like a robot, not friendly, and immature"? One would have to have a pretty high level of responsibility and maturity to get the grades and e.c.s to at least have Admissions look at your application.

Getting good grades doesn't mean you are mature...it may just mean you have really demanding/controlling parents. It may also mean you are one-dimensional. I am an academic who writes letters of recommendation all the time. While none of my letters are bad per se (I wouldn't agree to write a letter if I couldn't say anything positive), some are simply good while others are glowing. The glowing ones go way beyond grades and talk about the student's interpersonal skills (important for my discipline), maturity, leadership qualities, ability to work in teams, etc. I have no doubt that admissions offices are looking at letters of rec to get a sense of the candidate's personality and, more important, potential to become something special. They want students with that je ne sais quoi that goes beyond grades and test scores.

And what makes you think that those Asian American students don't have that "je ne sais quoi " quality? I hear people say not to stereotype or look at URM students as statistics. Yet, these same folks don't seem to have any problems doing this very thing to Asian American students.

Read the other posts re: stuyvesant students/teachers.

The PP is obviously applying ignorant, racial stereotypes instead of reading informed posts. Typical low intelligence DCUM poster.

Actually, I'm not applying any stereotypes at all. And I certainly never said that Asian Americans don't have that je ne sais quoi. The point I am making is that Admissions may be making assessments about candidates' personalities and "soft qualities," as some have referred to them, based on teacher recommendations. I say this because others have criticized admissions for making these assessments when they've never met the student (i.e., they must be giving them low personality scores simply based on the fact that they are Asian American). My point is that high grades and test scores and a long list of ECs don't tell admissions officers whether a student has that je ne sais quoi. But a letter of recommendation very well may. Unless the plaintiffs in this lawsuit have read every letter of rec for admitted/rejected students, I don't see how they have a case (and, btw, I'm a law professor, so I think I have a pretty good sense of what it takes to prevail in a case like this).

The problem here is that this is a very subjective view. How do we know if this same student was a URM with the same letter of recommendation, this student would not get in?

I don't have a problem with universities looking at other non academic measures. The problem I have is that it appears that an Asian American student can have all of the qualities the university is looking for but because there are "too many" of them, they will take the other candidate over the Asian American one. Harvard and other universities have stated that their goal is diversity, which I agree, is laudable. However, when they start looking at ways to disqualify a student from one racial group over another with the same credentials simply because of the color of their skin, then it is discriminatory. This is what Harvard did years ago with Jews. If this same student was a URM with the exact same credentials and soft quality as the Asian American student and could get in, but the Asian American student can't, how is that not discriminatory?

Years ago, a black man had to outshoot, outscore, out-do everything a white man could do if he wanted a promotion or be picked up by a major league sports team. If it was wrong back then, why is it ok now?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What Asians should do is collectively boycott Harvard for a year or two. There are other Ivy League schools. There are schools like Cal Tech, MIT, UChicago, Stanford, JHU, and SLACs. It's doubtful Harvard can maintain its status for long.

That could potentially bring Harvard down to NYU, NW, WashU, USC, BU, Duke, Rice, Vandy...

It would certainly bring down their average SAT scores.

It really makes laugh that some people denigrate Asian American students for studying too hard, taking prep classes, which all help increase SAT scores, but then these same people like to tout how high their school's test scores are. Newsflash: your test scores wouldn't be as high without those "robotic, test-prepping" Asian American students.

I’m not sure it would necessarily bring down their SAT scores. My underis that they could fill the class several times over with applicants with near perfect scores. Certainly, they are not all Asian. Plenty of other non-Asian kids ( more than enough to fill the class) have perfect scores.

Before you accuse me of being racist, i’m Not saying what is happening is fair. I’m just saying that plenty of non-Asian kids have good scores, too. There is just a large number of Asian kids with good scores so ther percentage is high. Admission to these schools is a crap shoot for everyone and holistic admissions make it even less predictible, but if there is indeed a thumb on the scale against Asian kids, that is not right.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the criticisms is that the Harvard admissions office is ranking/rating the candidate's personality without meeting him/her. But it seems likely to me that the admissions office is relying heavily on letters of recommendation. That seems perfectly legitimate to me.

the folks interviewing the students gave them positive "personality" assessments, but the admissions staff would give those same students negative scores without ever having met them. How would you rate a personality based on letters of recommendation?

Do you really think an alumni interviewer has a better sense of a candidate's personality than a teacher who taught him/her for a year (or perhaps more)? I'm not saying that teacher recommendations might not be biased, but certainly a teacher is likely to comment on a student's personality (is she friendly, mature, responsible, caring, etc.), so I don't think it's fair to say that Harvard admissions officers are basing their personality assessments on nothing. Unless the study takes teacher recommendations into account, then I am unpersuaded by the fact that admissions officers disagree with an alum's recommendation based on a one-off interview.

Would a teacher recommendation state that the student is "like a robot, not friendly, and immature"? One would have to have a pretty high level of responsibility and maturity to get the grades and e.c.s to at least have Admissions look at your application.

Getting good grades doesn't mean you are mature...it may just mean you have really demanding/controlling parents. It may also mean you are one-dimensional. I am an academic who writes letters of recommendation all the time. While none of my letters are bad per se (I wouldn't agree to write a letter if I couldn't say anything positive), some are simply good while others are glowing. The glowing ones go way beyond grades and talk about the student's interpersonal skills (important for my discipline), maturity, leadership qualities, ability to work in teams, etc. I have no doubt that admissions offices are looking at letters of rec to get a sense of the candidate's personality and, more important, potential to become something special. They want students with that je ne sais quoi that goes beyond grades and test scores.

And what makes you think that those Asian American students don't have that "je ne sais quoi " quality? I hear people say not to stereotype or look at URM students as statistics. Yet, these same folks don't seem to have any problems doing this very thing to Asian American students.

Read the other posts re: stuyvesant students/teachers.

The PP is obviously applying ignorant, racial stereotypes instead of reading informed posts. Typical low intelligence DCUM poster.

Actually, I'm not applying any stereotypes at all. And I certainly never said that Asian Americans don't have that je ne sais quoi. The point I am making is that Admissions may be making assessments about candidates' personalities and "soft qualities," as some have referred to them, based on teacher recommendations. I say this because others have criticized admissions for making these assessments when they've never met the student (i.e., they must be giving them low personality scores simply based on the fact that they are Asian American). My point is that high grades and test scores and a long list of ECs don't tell admissions officers whether a student has that je ne sais quoi. But a letter of recommendation very well may. Unless the plaintiffs in this lawsuit have read every letter of rec for admitted/rejected students, I don't see how they have a case (and, btw, I'm a law professor, so I think I have a pretty good sense of what it takes to prevail in a case like this).

You are a LAW PROFESSOR?! Jesus Christ that’s amazing. And not in a good way.

I'm really struggling here to understand why you are so bitter. I have said nothing at all derogatory about Asian Americans. I have made a simple point about the role letters of recommendation play in admissions. Yet, you are attacking my intelligence, etc. for no reason. My point is simple: admissions officers use letters of rec to assess a student's personal qualities. Thus, there is arguably some basis for their personality scores aside from just racial stereotyping. Now, whether or not Harvard is relying on those letters of rec or just relying on racial stereotypes is impossible to know w/out reading the letters. Have you read the letters? No, I didn't think so. When someone makes a reasonable point, you should learn to accept and respond appropriately instead of attacking them. You see, that's the type of comment about a person I would make in a letter of rec that would never be apparent by looking only at a transcript and standardized test scores. Are you starting to understand how holistic admissions works?

low personality scores? That's gotta be one of the most racist factors, ever. Yet, somehow it's OK to tolerate this-- Asians are the victims of discrimination the same way Catholics are bashed on this site. Not acceptable. I'm not Asian.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What Asians should do is collectively boycott Harvard for a year or two. There are other Ivy League schools. There are schools like Cal Tech, MIT, UChicago, Stanford, JHU, and SLACs. It's doubtful Harvard can maintain its status for long.

This is very interesting to me. Do the other Ivy league schools, esp. Yale and Princeton use different selection methods and have a higher percentage of Asians in the undergrad student body?

The lawsuit is targeting Harvard bc it has the lowest percentage of Asians among Ivys.

DP... I think Yale's is lower. I think Harvard is just more popular.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What Asians should do is collectively boycott Harvard for a year or two. There are other Ivy League schools. There are schools like Cal Tech, MIT, UChicago, Stanford, JHU, and SLACs. It's doubtful Harvard can maintain its status for long.

This is very interesting to me. Do the other Ivy league schools, esp. Yale and Princeton use different selection methods and have a higher percentage of Asians in the undergrad student body?

The lawsuit is targeting Harvard bc it has the lowest percentage of Asians among Ivys.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the criticisms is that the Harvard admissions office is ranking/rating the candidate's personality without meeting him/her. But it seems likely to me that the admissions office is relying heavily on letters of recommendation. That seems perfectly legitimate to me.

the folks interviewing the students gave them positive "personality" assessments, but the admissions staff would give those same students negative scores without ever having met them. How would you rate a personality based on letters of recommendation?

Do you really think an alumni interviewer has a better sense of a candidate's personality than a teacher who taught him/her for a year (or perhaps more)? I'm not saying that teacher recommendations might not be biased, but certainly a teacher is likely to comment on a student's personality (is she friendly, mature, responsible, caring, etc.), so I don't think it's fair to say that Harvard admissions officers are basing their personality assessments on nothing. Unless the study takes teacher recommendations into account, then I am unpersuaded by the fact that admissions officers disagree with an alum's recommendation based on a one-off interview.

Would a teacher recommendation state that the student is "like a robot, not friendly, and immature"? One would have to have a pretty high level of responsibility and maturity to get the grades and e.c.s to at least have Admissions look at your application.

Getting good grades doesn't mean you are mature...it may just mean you have really demanding/controlling parents. It may also mean you are one-dimensional. I am an academic who writes letters of recommendation all the time. While none of my letters are bad per se (I wouldn't agree to write a letter if I couldn't say anything positive), some are simply good while others are glowing. The glowing ones go way beyond grades and talk about the student's interpersonal skills (important for my discipline), maturity, leadership qualities, ability to work in teams, etc. I have no doubt that admissions offices are looking at letters of rec to get a sense of the candidate's personality and, more important, potential to become something special. They want students with that je ne sais quoi that goes beyond grades and test scores.

And what makes you think that those Asian American students don't have that "je ne sais quoi " quality? I hear people say not to stereotype or look at URM students as statistics. Yet, these same folks don't seem to have any problems doing this very thing to Asian American students.

Read the other posts re: stuyvesant students/teachers.

The PP is obviously applying ignorant, racial stereotypes instead of reading informed posts. Typical low intelligence DCUM poster.

Actually, I'm not applying any stereotypes at all. And I certainly never said that Asian Americans don't have that je ne sais quoi. The point I am making is that Admissions may be making assessments about candidates' personalities and "soft qualities," as some have referred to them, based on teacher recommendations. I say this because others have criticized admissions for making these assessments when they've never met the student (i.e., they must be giving them low personality scores simply based on the fact that they are Asian American). My point is that high grades and test scores and a long list of ECs don't tell admissions officers whether a student has that je ne sais quoi. But a letter of recommendation very well may. Unless the plaintiffs in this lawsuit have read every letter of rec for admitted/rejected students, I don't see how they have a case (and, btw, I'm a law professor, so I think I have a pretty good sense of what it takes to prevail in a case like this).

You are a LAW PROFESSOR?! Jesus Christ that’s amazing. And not in a good way.

Anonymous wrote:From the Plaintiff's filing

A study of Stuyvesant High School in New York is illustrative. Stuyvesant is considered one of the top high schools in the country. What makes Stuyvesant especially
relevant here, however, is that over 70% of its students are Asian American and it is considered a Harvard feeder school, routinely sending over ten students per year to Harvard—but generally less than half of whom are Asian American. Therefore, the fact that Stuyvesant’s white students have a far better chance of being admitted to Harvard than their Asian-American peers, is deeply troubling.

When shown these data in her deposition, Stuyvesant’s Director of College Counseling broke down in tears. To her, this looks “like there’s discrimination, and I love these kids and I know how hard they work. So these just look like numbers to all of you guys, but I see their faces.” And she firmly rejected the notion that “the Asian kids are less well rounded than the white kid.” Ultimately, Stuyvesant’s Director of College Counseling agreed that “it’s hard to think of anything other than discrimination that could account for this.”.

Hahaha. Looks like the racist pigs in the Harvard Admissions office got so scared of this accusation, that they decided to steer clear of Stuyvesant this year completely. No admissions have been recorded at the Stuyvesant college admissions website. Cant be a coincidence that Harvard admits from Stuyvesant went from 10 to zero in one year. in 2010, they took 13 kids. Over the last eight years they have been really doing all kinds of shenanigans with their holistic admission scoring to eff over the Asian kids applying from Stuyvesant

http://stuy.referata.com/wiki/College_Decisions_Class_of_2018#Yale_University

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What Asians should do is collectively boycott Harvard for a year or two. There are other Ivy League schools. There are schools like Cal Tech, MIT, UChicago, Stanford, JHU, and SLACs. It's doubtful Harvard can maintain its status for long.

That could potentially bring Harvard down to NYU, NW, WashU, USC, BU, Duke, Rice, Vandy...

It would certainly bring down their average SAT scores.

It really makes laugh that some people denigrate Asian American students for studying too hard, taking prep classes, which all help increase SAT scores, but then these same people like to tout how high their school's test scores are. Newsflash: your test scores wouldn't be as high without those "robotic, test-prepping" Asian American students.

+1 Studying/working hard and being prepared are not negative qualities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What Asians should do is collectively boycott Harvard for a year or two. There are other Ivy League schools. There are schools like Cal Tech, MIT, UChicago, Stanford, JHU, and SLACs. It's doubtful Harvard can maintain its status for long.

This is very interesting to me. Do the other Ivy league schools, esp. Yale and Princeton use different selection methods and have a higher percentage of Asians in the undergrad student body?

DP.. from what I can tell, it's pretty similar across the board for Asian American students. Those ivies just don't want *that* many of them.

Cal Tech is the only one listed above that has zero affirmative action, and their Asian American population is something like 40%. Same for Cal, though that's a public school.